Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Hard to Watch


Wow, um, what can possibly be said about Governor Richardson's performance there? Sheesh.

Posted by Virginia Hamm | August 10, 2007 7:48 AM

What a dumb ass. He back peddled like a republican after that stupid "choice" comment.

Posted by Shawn C | August 10, 2007 8:08 AM

Somehow I think Mr. Poe's enthusiasm for Bill Richardson will be cooled a bit.

Posted by Big Sven | August 10, 2007 8:12 AM

I really don't think Richardsonís blunder is out of any anti-lgbt sentiment. I'm sure he regrets it. He's been very progressive with partnership laws in my home state of NM. Still, he's like a school boy who didn't study for an exam and tries to wing it.

But, he has solid credentials. I hope that he'll be a Secretary of State for Hillary.

Posted by raindrop | August 10, 2007 8:16 AM

One day we'll have a pet rock as President.

Posted by Sally Struthers Lawnchair | August 10, 2007 8:19 AM

I don't think this matters. (And no I'm neither gay nor american, so maybe my opinion on this doesn't matter, but...

1) Richardson is on record supporting pro-gay policy actions. Isn't this more important than whether or not he beleives homosexuality to be a choice?
2) It can be argued that religion is a choice more ocnvincingly than it can be argued that homosexuality is one. Yet nobody thinks that people ought to be discriminated against based on their religion.

I understand why gay rights groups have focussed much of their energies on communicating the fact that homosexuality is an innate aspect of an individual, as opposed to a voluntary lifestyle choice. Science is on your side, as is logic - when conronting someone who wishes to discriminate against gays, the argument that homosexuality cannot be chosen or unchosen is a powerful weapon. But criticizing a politician who has supported gay issues on this issue amounts to doctrinal infighting between allies. THere are better things to focus on.

Posted by Ken Ketchum | August 10, 2007 8:24 AM



Posted by Mr. Poe | August 10, 2007 8:36 AM


Saying that homosexuality is a choice is incredibly ignorant. I'm not going to vote based on who is going to give me gay rights, but it will be part of what I'm looking at. Richardson didn't fuck up with saying homosexuality is a choice. He fucked up throughout the entire 'debate'. I agree with Joe My God. Highly unlikable. (Last night.)

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 10, 2007 8:43 AM

I wouldn't really call that a meltdown by any definition of the word. He stumbled a bit, sure, but I didn't sense any animosity toward the gays, and if what people are saying here about his voting record in NM is true, then it seems that the media is making a big deal, once again, over nothing of any real substance.

Posted by jameyb | August 10, 2007 8:46 AM

I wonder if Bill Richardson even knows any gay people?

Posted by DOUG. | August 10, 2007 9:06 AM

Maybe he just doesn't care if it's a choice or not? He still has more cred on the issue then any of the leading candidates. It's his first stumble and this slip up is not really that big of an issue. If anything, I would be upset at his campaign manager for letting him go on that very bizarre set up without knowing what to say to such a basic question.

It was a softball lob that most would have slammed out of the park.

Posted by Ryan | August 10, 2007 9:18 AM

Blurting out "it's a choice" right off the bat was probably not the best thing he could have done, but I don't care, and I'm gay. Richardson would make a fine president. Willing to listen to the argument he was trying to make despite the fumble, what I heard was that he doesn't really care if it's a choice or not but rather cares about people being treated equally. Previously lots of gay people "chose" to live the heterosexual "lifestyle", so why "reward" their "choice" and not the "choices" of others? He should have practiced his spiel more but I give him props for showing up, not pandering, and trying to let his record on the issues do some of the talking.

Posted by kentankerous | August 10, 2007 9:20 AM


Posted by Ryan | August 10, 2007 9:24 AM

"I don't like to answer definitions like that that are grounded in science or in something else that I don't understand."

Don't we already have a president like this? I wasn't a fan already but his poor speaking abilities really seal the deal.

Posted by dirge | August 10, 2007 9:59 AM

Yeah, that's hard to watch alright. I absolutely love his policies, and his speaking style here seems very intimate, down-to-earth. I wish he had more oratory ability. Why can't we have a toastmaster again?

I so want Hilary as Chief of Staff, Richardson as Sec. of State, and Obama as President.

Posted by NaFun | August 10, 2007 10:32 AM

He should have done himself a favor and stayed home. I personally appreciate that he accepted the invitation, but that was a political mess of a night for him. And, of course, disappointing to everyone who had to suffer through it.

Posted by The General | August 10, 2007 10:40 AM

Doug, Mr. Richardson has hired all kinds of gays to his Cabinet in Santa Fe. In addition to hiring gays for important roles, he also hired gay decorators to redecorate the Palace of the Governors in Santa Fe.

Posted by Catman | August 10, 2007 10:56 AM

Why does it matter if it a choice or not? Religion is a choice. By contrast the "Washington State Legislature[26] defines a "Psychopathic personality" to mean "the existence in any person of such hereditary, congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional rather than the intellectual field and manifested by anomalies of such character as to render satisfactory social adjustment of such person difficult or impossible."

So we protect religion, a choice, but we do not protect psychopathic behavior, which in many cases is NOT a choice.

In short, society should protect expressions of the human condition which are non-detrimental to their neighbors, and restrict expressions which are detrimental.

Since homosexuality in *NO WAY* affects my ability to puruse my life, why the fuck should I care if it a choice or not? Fags are happy, and they don't keep me from being happy, so let do it.

That extends to marriage and adoption - what matters is that homosexuals make better parents - not that they did or didn't chose to be homosexual.

Posted by A | August 10, 2007 11:20 AM

@17 Are you suggesting there exists a non-gay decorator?

Posted by The General | August 10, 2007 11:21 AM

he made a slip up, he is very solid on his policies and very progressive. he is the first governor to make indian affairs a cabinet level position. but, he's not slick enough to get elected.

Posted by J | August 10, 2007 11:35 AM

Not only does he have the best actual record on this issue but he has the most declared stance on the issue too.(see video)

I would hate to have this guy lose out because of a misunderstanding.

To the person who thinks her isn't slick enough: think about our last 8 years. People like un-slick.

Posted by Ryan | August 10, 2007 11:50 AM

"Hard to Watch?" Yes, watching B Rich does make me hard!

Posted by chubby chaser | August 10, 2007 12:42 PM

It matters that he flubbed the question, but it matters much more HOW he flubbed it. He looked stupid and unprepared. He fell down. He's done. His campaign was running on vapors anyways, but now it's over. He needs to bring his numbers UP at every possible opportunity -- every debate has to be a grand slam now -- and this was a called strike three.

Too bad, because I like the guy and wish he was Prez.

Posted by Fnarf | August 10, 2007 1:16 PM

He never had a chance anyway.

Posted by crazycatguy | August 10, 2007 3:25 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).